Oculus worked closely with Samsung to create the Samsung Gear VR headset, but this is the right move. The nightmare scenario for both companies would be if a Note 7 were to combust while it was strapped to someone's face. As replacement Galaxy Note 7s prove unsafe, Oculus officially disables the Gear VR headset from working with Samsung's unfortunate phone. If you're a Note 7 and Gear VR owner and you've somehow remained unaware of Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 recall as it's unfolded for the past month, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
One nuance of the case -- how jurors were supposed to break out the value of a design from the overall product -- was a source of most of the questions, The justices wanted to know what instructions the jury would be given when looking at damages, "If I were the love mei powerful iphone 8 plus protective case - black juror, I simply wouldn't know what to do," Justice Anthony Kennedy said several times during the hour-long hearing here in Washington, DC, The justices used the analogy of a Volkswagen Beetle in their questioning to understand the positions of Apple, Samsung and the Justice Department..
Some justices pointed out that the VW Beetle's design is what makes that car different from all the others, but Justice Samuel Alito remarked that some people don't care what a car looks like but instead want good gas mileage or other features. A decision by the court, which is hearing its first design case since the 1800s, could have a ripple effect across the technology industry and ultimately affect the gadgets you buy. What's at question is how much money one company has to pay for copying the designs of another. Current law says an award can be collected on the entire profits of an infringing device. In this case, that's the $399 million Samsung paid Apple late last year.
The Supreme Court will likely rule on this case in the first quarter, Samsung and its supporters are trying to limit the damages patent infringers have to pay, Samsung love mei powerful iphone 8 plus protective case - black says an Apple victory would stifle innovation, Apple argues a Samsung win would weaken the protections afforded to new creations, Notably, the devices in question haven't been on the market in years, "The justices certainly seemed to be thinking about establishing a new legal standard for how Section 289 [of the Patent Act of 1952] should be applied, and asked a lot of questions dealing with details like jury instructions and the kinds of evidence that would be needed," said Steve Chang, an intellectual property law attorney at firm Banner & Witcoff, He attended the hearing Tuesday..
Chang said while it was tough to tell which way all of the justices were leaning, at least one, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, seemed ready to send the case back to a lower court for further proceedings. The original Apple v. Samsung trial in 2012 captivated Silicon Valley and the tech industry because it exposed the inner workings of two notoriously secretive companies. It was just one of many cases around the world as the rivals sparred both in the marketplace and in the courtroom. And yes, it's still going on now.
